On Jan 1, 2020, at 13:23, Random832 wrote:
>
> Neither of these constructs seems to be particularly useful outside the other
> one,
Yes, and you already quoted me as saying that.
> which suggests to me they should not be orthogonal in the way you have
> proposed. Is there a good reason for
> On Jan 1, 2020, at 08:32, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> Here's a proposal for JavaScript that seems to be going through
> standardization: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-pattern-matching
The JS solution is interesting, but I’m not sure how well it works for a
different language. Python is
On Jan 1, 2020, at 07:03, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 02:28:26PM -0800, Andrew Barnert via Python-ideas
> wrote:
>
>>if try 0, y, z := vec:
>># do yz plane stuff
>>elif try x, 0, z := vec:
>># do xz plane stuff
>>elif try x, y, 0 := vec:
>>
>> On Jan 1, 2020, at 04:21, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 05:18:59PM -0800, Andrew Barnert via Python-ideas
>> wrote:
>>
>> Some languages use special syntax to mark either values or targets:
>> let x, K, let z = vec
>> x, @K, z = vec
>> But the simplest solution is
On Dec 31, 2019, at 21:35, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> There were match proposals in the past — have you looked those up? Maybe they
> solve your problem without that syntax — or maybe they would benefit from it.
Most of the existing proposals require a lot more syntax—a new form using two
On Tue, Dec 31, 2019, at 22:18, Andrew Barnert via Python-ideas wrote:
> I’m just feeling out whether either one is so horrible that any larger
> proposal (which I don’t have in anywhere near ready-to-share form yet)
> would have to be rejected on that basis. (Which I think is a serious
>
Here's a proposal for JavaScript that seems to be going through
standardization: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-pattern-matching
Here's the end of an older python-ideas thread:
https://mail.python.org/archives/search?mlist=python-ideas%40python.org=pattern+matching+reprise
On Tue, Dec
On 1/1/20 10:02 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
# Fail() is a function that raises an exception;
# __ is a special predefined Pattern that always matches.
result = match(vec, # object to match
Pattern(0, 'y', 'z'), handle_yz,
Pattern('x', 0, 'z'),
On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 02:28:26PM -0800, Andrew Barnert via Python-ideas wrote:
> if try 0, y, z := vec:
> # do yz plane stuff
> elif try x, 0, z := vec:
> # do xz plane stuff
> elif try x, y, 0 := vec:
> # do xy plane stuff
> elif x, y, z := vec:
>
On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 05:18:59PM -0800, Andrew Barnert via Python-ideas wrote:
> Some languages use special syntax to mark either values or targets:
>
> let x, K, let z = vec
> x, @K, z = vec
>
> But the simplest solution is to nothing: you have to stick it in an
> expression that
On 2019-12-31 4:28 p.m., Andrew Barnert wrote:
On Dec 31, 2019, at 11:02, Soni L. wrote:
>
>
>> On 2019-12-31 3:56 p.m., Andrew Barnert wrote:
>> On Dec 31, 2019, at 09:43, Soni L. wrote:
>> > > I would like this code to work, but currently python ignores
__subclasscheck__ in many
> This could also be resolved with any &/or all i.e.:
>
> if any([foo in foobar, bar in foobar, baz in foobar]):
>
> Or even:
>
> if any([l in foobar for l in [foo, bar, baz]]
The goal was to have simpler syntax not a harder one, even if this already
works this can't be said simpler (I
This could also be resolved with any &/or all i.e.:
if any([foo in foobar, bar in foobar, baz in foobar]):
Or even:
if any([l in foobar for l in [foo, bar, baz]])
but I would like to suggest allowing any & all to take more than a single
argument,, i.e. if there are multiple arguments
13 matches
Mail list logo
